Comments on: Grassley Reassures Republican Constituentshttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/
The Politics and Government blog of The New York TimesTue, 09 Feb 2010 20:43:05 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/section/NytSectionHeader.gifNYThttp://www.nytimes.com
By: millie lencionihttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1539429
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:44:18 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1539429Granted this new health plan has many problems, and is not satisfactory to most people. But, instead of scare tactics, these supposed educated politicians in both parties haven’t suggested any alternative plans. The idea is not supposed to be to just badger the opposing side, but to work together for something that is workable and fair.
]]>By: J.http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1536751
Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:55:49 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1536751Lefty Democrats, get over it. If the nation wanted health care they would have elected Barak Obama. Senator Grassley is absolutely right. Health care should not save money by killing nice old folks.
]]>By: Weshttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1533841
Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:03:00 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1533841There’s an old saying that goes like this: “If it sounds too good to be true it probably isn’t”. While all the rheteric goes on from two opposing views on health care reform nobody has answered the question convincingly how we are going to increase the coverage to more people and control the costs without reducing care. It just doesn’t add up!

I agree this is a very important issue and that’s why it should be carefully studied for an appropriate solution. Neither side holds all the answers. We need each other and we need to work through this issue in a bypartisan manner in a way that will work for us not only now but in the future. From my perspective two things stick out like sore thumbs. One is the unreasonable malpractice settlements that raise the cost of health care insurance and force doctors to order additional tests just to protect themselves. I’m told this issure raises the cost of health care by 25%. Now I’m not saying that doctor’s who make mistakes shouldn’t be held accountable nor that injured parties shouldn’t get satisfaction. I’m saying it should be reviewed and kept in check.

The second thing that should be done to control health care costs is to have a system that detects fraudulent billing practices by some doctors who are getting rich without actually providing the services they bill. I understand this is occasionally discovered with medicare billing and it seems to me that with computers today it shouldn’t be hard to root this out.

Finally, health care is a very personal issue and the patient should have rights not only to privacy but the right to choose his doctor and treatment options. If the government is going to reform health care it should be done at a slower pace and with much more caution than we are currently seeing now. Why not reduce the huge 1000 plus page proposal down to a few well written pages we can all understand? I think we fear the unknown factors that may be hidden there.

The problem is it won’t be just Iowans who get what they deserve. I don’t believe Senator Grassley, but if he has his way, I’ll be stuck with it, too! I want a government option – ideally, single-payer – and I’m from North Carolina.

He won’t, of course, because that’s not the game Republicans play these days. Republicans aren’t about crafting public policy to benefit middle America (all pretenses to the contrary). Republicans are about protecting monopolies and coddled special interests who contribute (massively) to their re-election campaigns, the public (and, by extension, America) be damned.

If the people of Iowa are so stupid as to believe the tripe Grassley feeds them, they deserve what they get.

]]>By: tell it like it ishttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1531897
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:59:47 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1531897Don Duval-I am so glad you gave me your version of subsidy. I still am not sure who you were pointing out was receiving the subsidy, but it isn’t the employer. It is more than legal to deduct employee compensation, regardless of form as long as it fits IRS guidelines. Now if you were to speak about compensation received which is not taxed, such as health care benefits, that would be considered subsidized. Duriseti correctly points out that if wages would go up in lieu of health care benefits, that basically makes them untaxed income. This trivial matter only concerns those who are receiving those free benefits, however, while the rest of us pay our health insurance with post tax dollars.
Speaking of unions having good benefits, why is it they think it is such a good idea to increase the taxes on someone else’s income, but they object to having their benefits, which are basically untaxed income, taxed to help pay for a program they support? Didn’t Biden say it was patriotic to pay taxes? Are they being unpatriotic?
]]>By: rmchttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1531879
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:45:01 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-153187983…Tietjens

I will give it a try…I think that the premium I pay goes to the insurance company-BCBS in my case. BCBS used to be not for profit, but no more…Just like Snapple used to be a wholesome beverage-until it was bought out by a huge corporation and then the fruit juice was substituted with colored water, artificail flavor and corn syrup-but I digress- unless you suspect that Corporations don’t have the best interests of the consumer, the citizen and the country at heart.

Back to your point…the money goes into the BCBS insurance and then some of the money pays for healthcare of the sick. Some of the money goes to those that process the bills, some to their supervisors, some to the stockholders, some to the salaries of the administrators salaries….some to the bonuses of the top administration…some to the advertising department which tells us we need their insurance….some money to the lobbyists that pay Congress men and Sarah Palin to scare people into accpeting the staus quo…And what is really gained??? Are you asking that?

Well there is a nice extra layer of bureacracy that would be avoided if it was run by the government-so jobs. The system helps keep bureacrats in their jobs and adminsitrators in theirs….I like the funny commercials they put on televison too. I think that duck is so cute.

It never has made any sense to invite middlemen into health care, and that’s all HMOs and other managed-care groups offer: unnecessary middlemen who add a huge and unnecessary cost to medical treatment. In addition to profit, a large percentage of our premium dollars goes into sales, marketing, and even lobbying Congress.

The current CEO of UnitedHealth (Steven Hemsley) has “$744 million” in stock options. Profits have increased over 400% from 2002-2007. Former Cigna executive Wendell Potter testified before Congress that the insurance industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. He said: “I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”

A member of Congress recently asked three insurance executives in a committee hearing if they would end the practice of canceling policies for sick enrollees and they refused. Wendell Potter explained: “The only reason they would have said that is to cover themselves. And to send a signal to Wall Street that we’re going to continue business as usual. They were talking to Wall Street at that moment.”

]]>By: Tietjenshttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1531701
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:28:13 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1531701TR — The gobbledygook you threw out there in comment #79 is an all-time classic.

Well here’s THE question: what do health insurance companies do for American citizens? Name the service that Americans get value out of paying a –and the name of the payment says it all — ‘premium’ for?

I ask that in all seriousness. Do you have an answer? does anyone else care to weigh in?

]]>By: durisetihttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1531681
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:58:43 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1531681Beyond which, there is compelling evidence that everybody who has employment based health benefits are not getting them for free–they’re getting them in lieu of higher wages
— Don Duval
_______________________________________________

While I am not saying I agree with the proposition, isn’t this an argument to tax these benefits?

At its core, one insightful poster on the Caucus the other day posited the following question: what exactly do medical insurance companies do to add value in America today: either material or with respect to patient satisfaction? I couldn’t think of one.

In a world with a government competitor or a single payer, they would do so by providing “premium coverage” on top of the base package. Imagine that: an America in which medical insurance providers actually add value to the social fabric. It’s a stunning possibility.

What evidence do you have that the different versions of bills dealing with the issue–and the resultant confusion–is “intentional”?

Last fall, more than one news organization reported that the incoming administration, in the interest of succeeding in this initiative had studied what went wrong when the Clinton administration took it on.

The consensus viewpoint was that one critical mistake they made was in writing the entire bill in the White House and then sending it as a done deal to Congress.

They specifically said the President would lay out a broad outline–with key objectives–and leave it to Congress to figure out how to achieve those objectives.

Do you have any evidence that the Congressional leadership went looking for multiple committees to hand the job to?

I could check–but I’m inclined to believe that the two committees in the Senate, and three in the House are all a) longstanding committees and b) were working entirely within a long-standing mandate to deal with this type of legislation.

What benefit do you think the proponents of reform might gain by having people confused?

The whole right-wing meme that the Democrats are trying to smoke things past the public (Palin’s bogus death panels) that the public is going to hate is really nothing sort of idiotic.

There is NO political advantage in doing something that will be widely disliked by the public.

From where I sit–the only people benefiting from the public’s confusion are the people dedicating their energies to stoking that confusion and frightening people with blather about death panels, euthanasia and rationing–the opponents of reform.

]]>By: Don Duvalhttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1531623
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:01:31 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1531623To tell it like it is at post number 77:

Just a guess on my part–but I’m inclined to suspect that your beef with Democrats lack of enthusiasm for taxing employer-based health benefits is largely based on your belief that union members have “gold-plated” health benefits that would be heavily taxed by any effort to fund financing reform that way.

What’s truly priceless to me in your bringing it up is that the whole issue of a federal tax subsidy for employment-based benefits is that it reveals the true hypocrisy of conservatives who decry the idea of government intervention in health care–as if it isn’t already–and as if the current employment based system would exist were it not for government intervention AND regulation.

The subsidy–in the form of businesses being able to deduct the costs of employment-based health benefits for their employees is the single biggest tax break/subsidy the federal government offers.

In order to take the deduction–businesses already have to comply with federal regulations regarding the type(s) of health coverage they offer and who they offer it to.

Your point about Democrats not being willing to ask people in the lower tax brackets to pay for “their own care” is specious nonsense.

ANYBODY drawing an on-the-books paycheck in this country are helping to pay for our existing health care system–it’s called payroll taxes.

The whole, every man for himself and for his own care meme you folks on the right peddle only reveals how little you know and understand about the concepts of insurance and risk pooling.

Beyond which, there is compelling evidence that everybody who has employment based health benefits are not getting them for free–they’re getting them in lieu of higher wages

]]>By: TRhttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1531621
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:59:24 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1531621NER–There are several problems with the legislation, mainly the rush to approve something that has varying versions…..it confuses people, which is intentional.

I do not deny that health cost will keep rising if nothing is done, but Obamacare does not address the root of the problem…the insurance companies….or more precise, Tort reform.
Insurance is the primary catalyst of increasing costs. We should start there, negotiate and reorganize the billing system, and than we will be on our way to a more cost effective, efficient system. There is no reason to scare the life out of everybody with a 1000 page document of government intrusion.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already in cahoots with those who should be kept in check, so they want a return on their investment….and that’s the rub.

Obama is “trying” to kill the snake by cutting off the tail.

]]>By: Rickhttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1531563
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:12:04 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1531563Senator Grassley knows full well no one is pulling any plugs on grandpa…Living wills, DNR orders, etc have been around for a long time, this is nothing new…

Sadly, Grassley is reading from page 1 of the Republican playbook – engage in dialogue that stokes the flames of fear, hatred, & xenophobia…

Shame on you Senator Grassley, it’s about time Iowans pull the plug on your senatorial career & vote you OUT!!..

]]>By: tell it like it ishttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/comment-page-2/#comment-1531543
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:41:57 +0000http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/grassley-reassures-republican-constituents/#comment-1531543duriseti-I happen to agree with you, we can’t have everything with limited resources. At least you are being honest. The problem is that is what the Dems and Obama are pushing, having everything when they know full well it isn’t possible. That is one of the reasons they cry for reform, because everything and everyone is not covered. Yet, they are not willing to tax health care benefits now provided tax free by employeers to help pay for their program, nor do they expect the lower tax brackets to help pay for their own care. I applaud you for at least being honest enough to acknowledge the reform being talked about will ration health care. Obama and the Dems are not being honest about it.
You then go on to rail against Palin. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinions. She is a definite lightning rod. However, you make one statement “My point is simple: have your convictions, have your preferences, but just be ready to pay the excess cost.” How about being ready to pay for your own basic costs first?
]]>